The angular red coupe darts and weaves along the narrow, glistening switchbacks as clouds swirl around the brooding 11th-century Schloss Hohenwerfen, the castle that starred in the 1968 World War II action thriller, "Where Eagles Dare." Earlier, on the wide-open spaces of the autobahn, we'd scattered hard-driven Opels and Volkswagens like autumn leaves, thundering past them at 165 mph with a supercharged sonic boom. But now we are deep in enemy territory, prowling roads that have honed the reflexes of some of Germany's best driver's cars. In a Cadillac...

Cadillac CTS-V Coupe versus BMW M3 and Audi RS 5: This one's been a long time coming. We've compared American and European cars before, but those stories have been more about a clash of cultures than a match-up of machinery. This time, though, it's different. The 2011 CTS-V Coupe packs the same firepower as the CTS-V sedan in a package that's slightly smaller, a little lighter, and a fraction more agile. And remember, the CTS-V sedan is a car that has vanquished Jaguar's impressive XFR and BMW's legendary M5-and put Mercedes-Benz's E63 AMG on notice.So, no excuses and no holds barred: America's bravest versus Germany's best.

BMW's M3 is the oldest car of this trio, but like a good red wine, it seems to be getting better with age. Under the hood is the now-familiar 4.0-liter V-8 that develops 414 horsepower at a screaming 8300 rpm, and our Melbourne Red coupe is equipped with the lightning-fast seven-speed dual-clutch automated manual transmission. It's also fitted with BMW's new Competition Package, a $2500 bundle of goodies that includes wider offset 19-inch alloy wheels, the ride height lowered by 0.4 inch, and reprogrammed Electronic Damper Control and Dynamic Stability Control settings designed to sharpen the car's dynamic responses beyond the already scalpel-like ability of the regular M3.Audi's new RS 5 is nothing less than a short, sharp jab at the solar plexus of the M3. Ingolstadt's engineers have reworked the RS 5's 4.2-liter V-8 so that it develops 444 horsepower at 8250 rpm. It also features a new seven-speed dual-clutch automated manual transmission. But, like BMW, Audi is beholden to its heritage: The RS 5 is built on the same front drive-biased platform architecture as the A4 sedan. To compensate for that fundamental chassis imbalance (the RS 5's front-to-rear weight distribution is 58/42 percent, compared with 51/49 for the M3 and 54/46 for the CTS-V Coupe) Audi engineers have attempted to deliver a technical knockout.

The RS 5 is a quattro, and to reduce associated understeer, Audi has reprogrammed its brake-management software to enable a form of four-wheel torque vectoring. The system monitors driver steering and throttle inputs to calculate the optimal torque distribution. If it detects slip from the inside wheels, it instigates a slight application of the brakes.

Right now you can get a discounted 2014 GT with Track Pack and Recaros for $31.1K or a well equipped Premiun for $35K at carsdirect ... In case you may not like the new 2015 GT or the inflated price you may have to pay initially.

v is way too quiet stock, on both ends. A true enthusiast should never drive stock!! Intake opens up the sc whine, corsa makes the LSA sing so neither get drowned out. At WOT its a true axe murder sound, at cruise no drone. All is :)

Why not ask the people who own these cars!?? I have a Cts-v 121mph, and a e90 335i 109mph why m3? M3 poor mpg, high price even used, no tq. Judging the back seat I don't think the V is in the same class as a e90. V gets 12mpg avg, 335 gets 20-23mpg. V handles like my CLS should have, recaro seats are just too bulky, need to be thinned out to avoid squeaking on the center console. I am very biased because I enjoy driving boosted cars much more than NA, for the sounds, and the hit when boost hits makes driving more fun. Also I look at tune ability; rs5, and m3 leave little to gain. Wish they tested modded cars more often on video. V sc whine just means its getting serious, and I love the CHEAP vette maint. E90 pro is the lighter weight, V is loud, huge power, want more? turn Trac off and try to keep it straight! V Trac control works diff than Germans, it won't kill the party and flash lights making you feel like u broke something. It's allowing limited slip to keep moving forward and staying smooth and efficient like a launch control after release. BMW/mb will make u think something broke when u get too crazy, an o sht moment. Lastly, and realistically I would never race in competition on a road corse with cars this expensive, and expensive parts. I save that for VLAB track days when invited by the manuf. finally the boosted F80 M3 will make big news look out for that beast, and with a tune it should smoke the V and everything else.

I like the CTS-V and think it's a great car but the reason why it didn't win the comparison sounds like something a white girl would say...."it doesn't have a great trunk...ewww we don't like the cup holders." it should be about what matters....fast car...good looking car...far cheaper than it's competition. that's what matters to us men anyway.

I'd take the Audi, already have one on order. It's easily the best looking to me and offers the most luxurious interior. It'll be a great GT car and winter beater for me. I already have a Carrera 2S so I'm not looking for a GT car that sacrifices comfort and amenities to try and do something that will never be as good as a real sports car.

All three of these cars are awesome. I enjoyed this article and - of course - the video. The review's conclusion was decided by the subjective tastes of the drivers involved. Therefore, it's senseless to argue on subjective merits. However, many people might walk away from this review thinking that the BMW M3 and the Audi RS 5 are superior _performance coupes_ and I would argue that presumption to be utter and complete nonsense. It's one thing to cling to a notion of a how a transmission should "feel" but until you run all three cars at the same track under the same conditions and with same driver then it's difficult to assess which is the best performance coupe in its class. To date, the CTS-V sedan manuals have been spanking the BMW M5 and the E63 on the track and on the street. Before we all say "displacement is not important" or the Germans "have it all figured out" let's see some actual lap times, shall we?

People get pissed off when the M3 wins. People need to understand that the M3 is the reason why such cars like Rs5,cts V coupe and C63 AMG exist. It is still the best car in this comparo and CTS V isn't cheap either so there is not other reason it should win unless it delivers the goods. The CTS V is an amazing car but still it isn't an M3 yet.Ortadragoon and Captain.Awesome You two have a point

I find it terrible that an American publication ranks the only American car 3rd when it all came down to subjectivity, and not objectivity. Had it been the later, the CTS-V wins - it crushed both cars.@ Captain Awesome - you can knock $995 off the CTS-V's price by dropping the red paint. By doing so, they are within a few dollars of one another.

@bsm124"The Caddy out guns the aging bimmer and over-engineered Audi in every performance category and costs less!"Please look at the chart on the last page of this comparo and tell me exactly how much the Caddy "costs less!" than the M3.I'm gonna jump the gun here and let you know that THE M3 IS THE CHEAPEST CAR IN THIS COMPARISON TEST. On top of being the most awesome car here, it is also the most affordable. Win-win situation...

The M3 is my choice.1. I dislike low revving engines. I love an engine that screams past 8000 RPMs. The Caddy has a fantastic engine for a push-rod. Key there, push-rod. Still, I love a small-block and the LS3 family (LS3, LSA, L99, and LS9) are among the best ever.2. More athletic than the Audi (with it's crutch, AWD) or the massive Caddy.3. More attractive. The Caddy is sexy, but it's garish and too pronounced. The Audi is attractive, too. But the BMW's simpleness is it's biggest advantage. It looks simple, pedestrian. BMW focuses your attention on the great sound it makes.

Caddy wins, hands down. I will take the Caddy with a six speed manual first. Then then the RS5 with a 6 speed manual, then the M5 with a six speed manual. F- a dual cluth autotragic. No, I cant shift manual as fast as one of these dual clutch paddles shifted automatics can do but I will feel much more involved with the car than flip a paddle. Who wouldnt want the Torque of a legendary pushrod V8? Over those other two techies?

The M3 is the bargain....don't usually see that. Hopefully when they update it they'll give that car some more torque. 295 lb-ft is pretty paltry for this class. My money would probably go on the RS5, but I'd be wishing that it wasn't quite so much money.

In an American Publishing and Cadillac still finished last! Then again, AUDI does Dominate Motorsports, Champions of the Last 10 Le Mans (Damn French 09) Won the last couple DTM Championships. And BMW is just Hardcore Pure-bred with Rich heritage obvious transition into its Road cars like the ///M3....And As for Cadillac's Racing heritage (wait, what series does Cadillac race in again???)

What an embarrassment. This was not a contest for the prissy wine conoisseur--though those are likely the hands that these beasts will be caged by. The Caddy out guns the aging bimmer and over-engineered Audi in every performance category and costs less! And lest we forget, the uneven playing field; can't the BMW and Audi be had with a traditional six speed manual? Why not compare vehicles that are optioned the same? The Cadillac's traditional sludge-box is also an embarrassment and GM definitely needs to get on the wagon, but the expirements controls are in the hands of the editors--is this a methodological failure? Until the playing field is even in the transmission department, and America can get over it's own self-prejudice, I remain skeptical.

I think C&D got it right. M3>CTS-V>RS5 overall. But if you weigh firepower/domestics heavily, go CTS-V. Looks/AWD RS5. lightness/balance/handling M3. I really don't think any car is particularly bad in any major area. I like having good options.

CAsurfman:Autoblog cant be taken too seriously. They have serious double standard issues and complain about almost every domestic car interior they review. They take nice pictures though. No one cares about blind spots on a coupe like the CTS- use your mirrors.

It's good they did a test Top Gear style...more about car-feeling than numbers...Caddy is best looking (GM brave design), the strongest ..and fresh comparing to boring gernmans...Althougt GM must work on every part (transmission), acording to rule" the cas is as good, as bad is its worst part...CTSV is a beast , but I belive they need v8 around 400bhp (..they should borow 5.0 from Ford ... Mustang:)

I agree with everyone else. Third place for the caddy.... really? The performance on the BMW M3 is better but Caddy's performance out does the Audi. So, it should be put second. When you consider the price and the LOOKS (cts-v is one great looking car), I put it first. MT has always been huge sucker for BMW.

Blake, which is more comparable ("similar") to the driving experience of a car with a dual clutch unit?(Choose the best answer out of the choices provided.)A) A car with two pedals (gas and brakes) that can still be shifted on command via "rocker switches."B) A car with three pedals (gas, brakes, and clutch).(Hint: dual clutch equipped cars have two pedals but can still be shifted on command.)

How is a traditional 6 speed automatic similar to a 7 speed dual clutch unit?Also: Lulz @ people complaining about the observed fuel mileage. I guess they think 160+mph should return highway mileage seeing as how it's on the highway.

captain:Point is the RS5 wont be on sale here until 2012 and the V could be enhanced in two years. They are comparing 3 cars when one of them isnt sold in the US. The V is automatically in second place based on the fact that it's actually available for the 2011MY. The manual should've been used if they think the auto is a liability. The point is the car has that option but MT talks about the auto like you are stuck with it.

bbkk:Power to weight ratio. I'm sure you are familiar with the term. Saying the M3 is overacheiving is ridiculous when a Mustang can get to 60 in 4.6 secs and run the quarter in 110mph for $31k. The M3 is very light for a car with a V8 (cant think of any lighter cars)and thus it can get close to the V below 100mph. The faster you go, the more the V will open the gap due to its hp advantage. When a car can get to 60 in 4.1 secs due to launch control it ridiculous to expect a similar car to "crush it" in acceleration without AWD. Only a GTR can crush an M3 in 0-60 and that's due to traction. The Mustang pulls .95g on the skidpad. If you think its a straight line cruiser you aren't too smart. Then again, your posts make that evidene.

nature:Butt whipped? Did you read the comparo? The V had the strongest engine, best steering and great brakes. They said the tranny was the only real weak point. That's not a whipping my man. bbkk:People arent setting up launch control at a stoplight. Period. As I said, its only good for testing or playing around. Its not even useful at a track where the M3 would lose to the CTS-V coupe as well all know. It's a gimmick.

"The CTS-V would've won if it had a manual. Blah blah blah."- Do you guys realize that they are comparing all cars here with SIMILAR transmissions? That manual would have been out of place in this test. It would present a completely different driving dynamic (shifting with a clutch pedal) not present in the others; it would be like comparing apples to pineapples.- The tests I have seen place the automatic transmission CTS-V as the faster straight-line alternative to the manual for whatever reason. Look it up.- GM's launch control numbers in their launch control equipped cars, although consistent, are slower than the fastest times feathered out with launch control switched off. If this CTS-V had launch control, it would not have been faster than the numbers you see here.- No, the 2013 RS 5 was not sent here from the future.

Syj - The M3's acceleration is VERY close in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Sorry, the V's 3 tenths of a second and 4 mph faster doesn't impress me when it has 142 more hp and 256 more lb/ft torque. Most cars on the road don't even have 256 lb/ft of torque. Yeah, i get that the V weighs a lot more, but the power difference should still have crushed the M3 instead of sweating it out to take the lead. I'm impressed that the M3 really kept up, despite the V's HUGE power advantage.Funny you bring up the Camaro/Mustang in a luxury sport car comparison. Too bad all they have is straightline acceleration. Throw any turns in the mix and they get sloppy real quick, at least in comparison to these three cars. Again, the torque difference is huge, and the Mustang probably weighs a little less. Not sure about the Camaro's weight though. Anyway, still an irrelevant statement.I'm pretty sure launch control isn't that difficult to figure out. I don't know what you're talking about.

Syj - You're probably right about highway drag races where traction is mostly a non-issue, but stoplight races are just as common, and the CTS-V's lack of launch control and low-speed traction would obviously give the advantage to the M3/RS5. By the way, I've watched a good amount of video/audio on the CTS-V/M3, and IMO the supercharger is quite audible and annoying at lower revs, and then slowly dulls as the revs rise and the engine sound mostly takes over. I'm not sure what you mean by "manly" sounding. Is that just another typical American way of saying, "there's no replacement for displacement"? The sound is obviously deeper, but its also more than 50% bigger, maybe the deeper the more manly?? Idk, not seeing your logic.

What is the fuss here about the M3 winning by mistake, Those of you who are angry of the results of this comparisson need to know that the MT know what they are doing when rating these cars. Most of you havent even driven any of these cars and yet you are here trying to argue that the Cuddy shouldn't have finished last. It got his butt whopped and there is nothing wrong with that. The M3 does this job the best and look, It is the cheapest here..and i thought the cuddy would be the cheapest..what happened??

summersh:Jaguar and Bentley are known for using wire mesh grilles. Its not tacky. Don't ever confuse the CTS with a pimped out G37 with ridiculous ground effects. The mesh grille is only tacky if you thing dull Japanese luxury brands set the standards for exterior design. everdream:Guess you must be talking exteriors only. Caddy's interior is better looking and more modern than the depravation chamber known as the M3 interior. as for the exterior- 99% of people wouldnt know the M3 is anything more than a 3 series coupe.

this just shows that gm needs to fix the sizing of their vehicles so that the right comparisons are made, they do this with several of products...the audi is easily the best looking so maybe that helped it beat out the cts with that tacky grille (people say the g35 anniversary edition looked riced??) im a fan of the cts but lets face it the m3 has been the benchmark for sports sedans/coupes for years and even for other segments it will take a lot to beat but

bbkk:You can find plenty of video out there with the V and ZR1. The supercharger is barely audible. The M3 sounds OK when you get it well into the rev range but overall its not a manly V8 sound. The V is actually too muted for my tastes. The ZR1 sounds magical when working. The M3 is NOT close in acceleration and trap speed through the quarter. It's close to 60 because of launch control but after that the hp of the V takes over as evidenced by a trap speed that is close to GTR territory. I mean the Mustang and Camaro can run 110-111mph in the quarter so the M3's trap speed isn't all that impressive for $69k. What is launch control REALLy for other than magazine testing? In the real world when no driver has time to engage launch control the V will clearly be the faster car. MT obviously didn't deduct any points for the M3's dated, dull interior. Worst of the group in that department.

bbk:You've driven the V? didnt think so. C&D and MT said it had the best steering of the group and C&D said it had the best brakes and best high speed ride quality. Sorry, the M3 is hardly unrivaled.Those reveling in the M3's numbers need to keep in mind that you arent going to match those numbers on the street and launch control was likely used. The V's numbers are done the old fashioned way and in a real street race the V would demolish the other two cars. The gap in acceleration is only so small due to launch control which ensures a perfect high rev launch for the two weaker cars.

UAW - The V's acceleration advantage was slim at best, and quite frankly, a $65K-$70K Caddy should come with launch control or at least have it as an option with that amount of power going to the rear wheels. Unless you really like the sound of supercharger whine drowning out the rest of the engine, I doubt the LSA sounds better than the M3.

So Audi adds tons of tech to counter understeer???!? Couldnt they have just designed a RWD and be done with it? That's what I hate about Audi and Acura and all the other FWD biased cars. They have to add millions of $$$ in R&D for add'l tech (SH-AWD, Torque Vectoring etc) to be on par with RWD cars' handling and balance. I don't get it...And why all the concern over weight? So what if the V is heavier? it moved better than the other two!

bbkk, unrivaled? This whole test says the complete opposite! I know that numbers don't say it all, but they say much more than you're giving them credit for in this case. Remember this is a bigger, heavier car without the assistance of launch control. And why didn't we get an audio clip of how the LSA sounds from behind the wheel? I'm willing to bet the V would win that one, too!

DrEagle - You forgot one thing...the V weighs 700 lbs more than the M3, explaining the paltry difference in acceleration numbers. However, to be completely honest, even when considering the weight difference, the V should probably have beaten the M3 by a half-sec to 60 and a full second in the 1/4 mile. That extra 250+ lb/ft of torque should have pulled much more despite the extra weight. Those saying that the M3 should not have won, have never driven it. Numbers rarely reveal the true winner. That's why we trust in MT's staff to tell us what the numbers can't. The M3 is definitely not perfect, but the driving experience it provides behind the wheel is unrivaled.

For all those of you who insist that the Cadillac "beats up" or "walks all over" the M3 consider this. First, I would hardly call 1 tenth of a second in the 0-60 time a major victory! The Cadillac, on paper beats the M3, yes, however tell me what the V does with its substantial horsepower difference. 145 more BHP than the M3 and a massive 256 lb-ft more than the M3 and it still only beats it by 3 tenths of a second in the quarter mile and that is only if you have a skilled driver who can feather the throttle like it needs to be! Sorry GM guys, the M3 is the best car for the money! It costs less and does just as much as the V for the average driver! It truly is the drivers car in the bunch! And so we are clear, I think the Audi is the best looking by far! It is for sure the classiest one of the bunch!

How is the M3 greatest here when it can't even win in one performance category over V??? It has a ugly interior over the other 2. Clunky transmission over Audi. How is it the greatest??? Forgot...editors/drivers wanted it to win regardless.This article has no objective.